Law:

Section:

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 9---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.76---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Permission for adducing secondary evidence---Scope---Plaintiff lost the original deed/agreement during pendency of suit for specific performance of agreement, therefore he filed an application for seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence---Application for producing secondary evidence was allowed by trial court---Petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order of trial court, contended that plaintiff was not entitled for permission of adducing secondary evidence and as such order of trial court suffered from legal infirmity---Validity---Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of a deed in his favour---Entire case of plaintiff hinged on deed/agreement, which was a document relied upon in support of his claim---Nothing would remain to be proved in the case by the plaintiff, if he was refused to produce secondary evidence in circumstances---Objection of the petitioner was premature as the plaintiff would face the test of cross-examination by the opposite side qua authenticity of the deed and further admissibility or legality of the deed---Admissibility or legality of the deed would be determined on merit by the trial court at later stage---Impugned order was unexceptionable---Revision petition was dismissed. PLD 2006 Quetta 44 ref. Ch. Muhammad Ayaz for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th April, 2013. JUDGMENT LAL JAN KHATTAK J.--- Mst. Samina Yasmin has impugned the order dated 12-12-2012 of the learned Civil Judge-VII Dera Ismail Khan whereby application of the respondent/plaintiff for production of secondary evidence qua sale-deed dated 22-12-2008 was accepted. 2. Facts giving rise to the instant petition under section 115, C.P.C. are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking specific performance of a deed dated 22-12-2008 through which he had purchased the suit property from the respondent No.2 for sale consideration of Rs.90,000. 3. Plaintiff's case before the trial court is that not only the respondent No.2/defendant No.1 has…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492